MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1615789517 · doi:10.1111/ffe.12293

Numerical investigation of compliance equations used in the R‐curve testing for clamped SE(T) specimens

2015· article· en· W1615789517 on OpenAlexafffund
Yifan Huang, Wenxing Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFinite element methodTension (geology)Materials scienceCrack tip opening displacementStructural engineeringSingle specimenDisplacement (psychology)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionRange (aeronautics)Plane (geometry)RangingCompliance (psychology)Composite materialMechanicsGeometryMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsStress intensity factorGeologyUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three‐dimensional finite element analysis of clamped single‐edge tension specimen is performed to examine the accuracy of the crack‐mouth opening displacement compliance equations reported in the literature. The analysis covered both plane‐sided and side‐grooved specimens with a wide range of specimen configurations including nine relative crack lengths ( a / W ) ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 and seven relative thicknesses ( B / W ) ranging from 0.25 to 4. Based on the finite element analysis results, the crack length/compliance modification factors ( ρ ( a / W ) and ρ ( BCE ) ) are developed to improve the accuracy of the compliance equations. The results of this study can improve the accuracy of the experimentally determined J‐R and CTOD– R curves using the single‐specimen technique and single‐edge tension specimens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & StructuresSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207